<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (4) TMI 734 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341764</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal concluded that the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The rejection of the refund claim for a specific amount was set aside, while the rejection of another amount was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed based on the valid intimation of protest within a reasonable time frame.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 May 2017 10:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 734 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341764</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal concluded that the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The rejection of the refund claim for a specific amount was set aside, while the rejection of another amount was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed based on the valid intimation of protest within a reasonable time frame.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>